ID: nht76-1.34

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires that --

(i) "Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5."

(ii) "Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III -- speed restricted service: 35 MPH"

(iii) "have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 -- in fact they are speed restricted . . ."

and otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119.

I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking "MAX SPEED", you intended "MAX SPEED 35 MPH". Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the "motorcycle entry of Table III, rather than the "35 m.p.h." entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you have described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.

SINCERELY,

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

March 12, 1976

NHTSA

Att: Robert Aubuchon

In reference to the phone conversation of March 9, 1976, we would like to have the following Information:

1) Is it permissible (with respect to the safety requirments stated in Standards 119 and 120) to equip motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 MPH or less (see definitions R571 paragraph 571.3 - B and references in part 571, ST 123 - PRE 5 ST 108 - S.4.1.1 26/27, St 122 - S.5.4/S/5.5) with tires meeting the requirements of Standard 119 inasmuch as they:

a) are indicated in ETRTO data book S.5.1.B

b) carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH - S.6.5.

c) have tread wear indicators S.6.4

d) have passed the strength test - S.6.2., S.7.3, in accordance with tables I and II - plunger 5/16

e) have passed the endurance test - S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III - speed restricted service: 35 MPH

f) have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 - in fact they are speed restricted, moreover they may be included in the requirements of Standard 120 - see paragraphs: S.2, S.5.1.1, S.5.1.2, S.5.3. D"

N.B. There is no indication anywhere in Standard 119 and 120 that the speed restrictions apply only to trucks.

2) As discussed by phone, we have requested that a copy of the letter sent by ETRTO to the DOT be forwarded to you as soon as possible. We would appreciate if you would look into this matter and inform us of the outcome.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, we remain

Francesa Robinsons for Mr. Buzzi

G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

Industrie Pirelli spa

MARCH 15, 1976

Robert Aubuchon N.H.T.S.A. Office of Standard Enforcement

We have been informed by Pirelli Tire Corporation N.Y. your request for a copy of the ETRTO Submission to NHTSA concerning an amendment to FMVSS 119 and precisely 'Tyres for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability'.

A copy of it is here with enclosed.

Recently, February 26th, Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel of NHTSA has promised to Mr. Trimble, ETRTO General Secretary, that a Federal Register notice on the subject will be issued in the near future.

(P.G. Malinverni) Tyre Standardization

EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANISATION

The Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RD/MS 048/75

SUBMISSION N degree 6/119

FMVSS 110 - TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

In the preamble to Docket 71-18 Notice 6, published in the Federal Register Volume 39, No.29 dated Monday February 11th 1974, page 5192, reference was made to an E.T.R.T.O. proposal for new test values for certain motorcycle tires, which proposal was deemed to be "unclear as to the meaning . . . "

For convenience of reference the paragraph in question is quoted as follows:

"The E.T.R.T.O. proposed new test values for some motorcycle tires, but the request was unclear as to the meaning of the 62 mph criterion and the unsupported request cannot be granted. If in future, the E.T.R.T.O. petitions for rule making to revise the table, an explanation of the criterion and a justification for the test values would permit an informed decision."

In response to the invitation, implicit in this paragraph, to E.T.R.T.O. to petition "for rule making to revise the table" by submitting explanation and justification of its requirements E.T.R.T.O. submits the following petition for consideration on this subject.

FMVSS 119 recognises all data standardised by the various international and national standards organizations (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line) (Illegible Words) in tables II (strength) table III (endurance) and in paragraph S7-1 (high speed).

In accordance with the "invitation" instanced (Illegible Word) ETRTO formally requests reconsideration of the requirements of Standard 119 insofar as two categories of light motorcycle tires are concerned, these being the speed-restricted ranges of such tires listed on pages (Illegible Word) through 119 of the 1974/75 E.T.R.T.O. Data-book.

In requesting certain (Illegible Word) from the terms of Standard 119, E.T.R.T.O. is evoking (Illegible Words) which resulted in amendments to the requirements of (Illegible Words) 122 (Illegible Word) 123, as published in the Federal Register Vol. 39 No. 72 (Illegible Words) 12th 1974, in that the existing Standard 119 is "not reasonable, (Illegible Words) appropriate" to the light motorcycle tires in question.

a) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles With Speed Capability up to 50 mph

These tires are especially designed to be fitted to motor-driven cycles with a (Illegible Words).

They can be recognised from having the word "Moped" (or alternatively "Cyclomoteur", or "Ciclomotore" or "Circlomotor") in the vicinity of the (Illegible Word) designation (e.g. (Illegible Word) - 17 Moped).

E.T.R.T.O. requests that for tires to be mounted on motor-driven cycles with a top speed capability of 30 mph of less, tires known as moped tires in Europe and with a speed restriction of 30 mph, the following specifications be adopted:

1. Strength: the minimum static breaking energy should be the one allowed for rayon cord tires even for other types of cords such as cotton, which is widely used for this tire range and which has breaking energy properties almost identical to rayon.

2. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 100 rpm

The test leads could be (in percent of maximum lead rating): 100% for 4 hours, 108% for 6 hours and 117% for 24 hours.

3. High Speed Test: no high speed test will apply to these tires since they are "speed restricted".

4. Treadwear Indicators: in view of the low speed usage and the fact that these tires have very shallow tread patterns, (circa 3 mm) similar to cycle tires, E.T.R.T.O. (Illegible Word) that the requirement to add treadwear indicators at 1/32" (0,8 mm) is unrealistic and against the interests of the consumer.

b) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)

This is the category of tires previously referred to as "up to 62 mph", this being strictly equivalent speed to 100 km/h.

These tires are specially designed to be fitted on lightweight motorcycles with maximum speed not exceeding 60 mph.

(Illegible Line) is considered that a (Illegible Words) rating for these tires (Illegible Words) in a restricted-speed category. In consequence E.T.R.T.O. requested (Illegible Word) (Illegible Lines)

1. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 200 rpm, the test load in percent of maximum load rating 100 for 4 hours, 108 for 6 hours, 117 for 24 hours

2. High Speed: since the first step of the high speed test is 375 rpm equivalent to a speed on highway largely in excess of 75 mph and that speed is higher than the maximum allowed for the tire we would propose that category to be considered a speed restricted category therefore the high speed test will not be necessary for them.

3. Treadwear Indicators: for the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) (4) above the requirement for treadwear indicators be waived for this range of tires.

c) For case of consideration of these requests it should be noted tha the (Illegible Line) ranges of (Illegible Words) -speed motorcycle tires by their size designation as follows: (i) light motorcycle tires, 30 or 60 mph category - the size designations are in inches and fractions of an inch e.g. 2 1/2 - 17.

(ii) unrestricted speed motorcycle tires - the size designations are in inches and decimals e.g. 2.75 - 17.

E.T.R.T.O. requests that early consideration be given to this petition in order that appropriate steps may be taken for implementation prior to the March 1st 1975 effective date of Standard 119.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of the matter,

R. DERESSON General Secretary

ID: nht93-7.55

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: Judith Jurin Semo -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Importation from Germany of Demilitarized, Russian-Built, Special Purpose Trucks: Request for Determination That Trucks Are Off-Road Vehicles Not Subject To DOT/NHTSA Safety Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/19/94 from John Womack to Judith Jurin Semo (A42; Part 591; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Agrinvest International, Inc., 8433 N. Black Canyon Highway, Suite 116, Phoenix, Arizona 85021 ("Agrinvest"), we are writing to request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") issue a determination that demilitarized, special purpose, Russian-built trucks (ZIL model 131) are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards.

FACTS

Agrinvest plans to import 573 ZIL model 131 trucks into the United States from Germany later this month. Agrinvest acquired two different types of ZIL model 131 trucks at an auction in Germany in early 1993. All of the vehicles are demilitarized trucks that were used by the former East German military and, following re-unification, were sold through auction by the German Government.

DESCRIPTION

Each ZIL truck purchased by Agrinvest is a six-wheel drive vehicle with an eight-cylinder, spark ignition, internal combustion, reciprocating piston engine. Agrinvest purchased two types of ZIL model 131 trucks. Of the 573 ZIL trucks being shipped to the United States, 183 are demilitarized spraying tank trucks ("tank trucks"). The remaining 390 ZIL trucks are former military battalion trucks with various equipment configurations. (*) The battalion trucks are similar to the tank trucks in the basic design of the vehicle, i.e., the cab, chassis, engine, drive train, etc. in the two types of vehicles are the same.

Each ZIL tank truck has a tank constructed from heavy gauge steel, a mechanical pump, a manual pump, wide beam spray nozzles and associated equipment. The tank trucks were built to spray water or neutralizing agents to detoxify or decontaminate areas which have been biologically, chemically, or radiologically contaminated. The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that the tank trucks are classifiable as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. A copy of the September 7, 1993 ruling letter from the U.S. Customs Service is enclosed.

The battalion trucks were manufactured approximately five to ten years ago for use by the Soviet military for telecommunications, radar, and other military support purposes. The radio, telecommunications, and radar equipment were disabled and the frequency-carrying pans dismounted under the supervision of the German Ministry of Defense prior to the trucks being sold at auction. We believe that the battalion trucks, like the tank trucks, are special purpose

vehicles and would be classifiable in HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested a Customs ruling on the classification of the battalion trucks.

Last spring, Agrinvest obtained confirmation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF"), which issues permits for the permanent import of commodities listed on the U.S. Munitions Import List, that the ZIL water tank trucks do not require a BATF permit. A copy of that letter is enclosed. This month, Agrinvest requested similar confirmation from BATF for importation of the ZIL battalion trucks.

INTENDED USE

The ZIL tricks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States into special purpose, nonmilitary vehicles. After the ZIL trucks are converted and after the approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce is obtained, Agrinvest plans to export most of the trucks for use by civilian purchasers in Eastern Europe, Africa, and other overseas destinations where these types of vehicles are in service and where parts and services for the vehicles are available.

Agrinvest may enter samples of the ZIL vehicles into the United States to test the vehicles against Department of Transportation ("DOT")/NHTSA safety standards and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") emission standards. After such testing is completed, some ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards. Any ZIL vehicles imported into the United States will comply with U.S. regulatory requirements. It is possible that, after the conversion is completed and the vehicles are brought into compliance with all requisite safety and emission standards, Agrinvest will import some of the vehicles for use in its orchard operation in Arizona.

ANALYSIS

Under 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), vehicles which were "not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads" are not considered to be motor vehicles as defined in Section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391). Off-road vehicles are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that the ZIL trucks are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards because the trucks were not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

VEHICLE FEATURES

The ZIL trucks were originally designed for military use on rugged terrain and in areas without roads. The trucks have self-inflatable tires which enable an operator to reinflate punctured tires while continuing to drive the vehicle. Moreover, these tires are very large, because they are designed to span gaps in the driving surface of 600 millimeters (approximately 23.6 inches) and to ford water over 1.4 meters high (approximately 55.1 inches). Such heavy duty, off-road capabilities show that the ZIL trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

The ZIL trucks have a maximum permissible cruising speed of 70 kilometers/hour (approximately 42 miles per hour) and a maximum speed of only 80 kilometers/hour (approximately 48 miles per hour). The limited speed at which the trucks operate function as a practical restriction on their ability to be used on public roads; if they had been designed to be used primarily on the public roads, the trucks would operate at faster speeds. In addition, the trucks have a turning radius of 11.2 meters -- approximately 36.7 feet. This turning radius renders use of the trucks on public roads unwieldy and further illustrates that the trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

Each of the ZIL tank trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,850 kilograms (approximately 23,900 pounds), which includes a payload of 2,700 liters and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. Each of the ZIL battalion trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,185 kilograms (approximately 22,450 pounds), which includes a payload of 3,500 kilograms and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. The trucks are 2,740 millimeters wide (approximately 97 inches). The dimensions and weight of the ZIL trucks indicate that they are slow, heavy, and wide vehicles, which are not practical for use on public roads.

CUSTOMS RULING

The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that, for Customs purposes, the ZIL tank tricks are classified as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested that Customs issue a ruling on classification of the battalion trucks. The annotation to HTSUS Heading 8705 provides that "the primary purpose of a vehicle of this heading is NOT the transport of persons or goods" (emphasis in original). Although the Customs ruling on the tank trucks is not binding on NHTSA, it indicates that ZIL 131 trucks are not considered the type of vehicle that is primarily for use on public roads.

CONCLUSION

ZIL model 131 trucks are heavy, cumbersome vehicles, which were designed and built to be used on rough terrains. All of the ZIL 131 trucks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States. After the trucks are converted and the approval of the Department of Commerce is obtained, most of the ZIL trucks will be exported for use overseas in areas without good road systems. If Agrinvest can satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, it may use some of the trucks in its orchard operation in Arizona.

Photographs of the ZIL trucks and specifications for those trucks are enclosed with this request. Please call me at (202) 626-6606 if you have any questions or would like additional information in order to issue a ruling that the ZIL model 131 trucks are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because the trucks are expected to arrive in the United States by the end of the month, we would appreciate an early response. To avoid mail delays, we ask that you call us once the letter has been prepared, so that we may arrange for a messenger to pick it up.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

(*) The 390 battalion trucks consist of 45 dual generator trucks, 90 radio equipment trucks, 62 radio equipment switching center trucks, 62 mobile teletypewriter trucks, 41 paraboloid antenna trucks, 45 mobile workshop trucks, 9 radio link system station trucks, 13 radar station trucks, 7 mobile Robutron/GUM computer trucks, 4 target acquisition trucks, 5 cable drum (with racks) transportation trucks, 3 mobile water treatment unit trucks, 1 telecommunications switching center truck, I mess/boarding truck (with built-in cupboards, shelves, benches, tables, etc.), and two messing/storage trucks (with built-in cupboards and shelves).

Enclosures

(Photos omitted.)

9/7/93 letter from the U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury to Dennis Mack regarding classification. (Text omitted.)

5/5/93 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Judith Jurin Semo. (Text omitted.)

List of specifications. (Text omitted.)

Portions of the fourteenth edition of Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics (1993-94). (Text omitted.)

ID: nht91-7.26

DATE: December 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Matthew J. Plache -- Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 10-17-91 from Matthew J. Plache to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6577)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an opinion of whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)), if it were to sell Daihatsu HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications contained in a recent Request for Bid issued by the City of Los Angeles. According to your letter, HIJETS are general purpose off-road utility vehicles that are not intended for use on the public roads, streets or highways and, as such, do not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The City of Los Angeles Request for Bid, among other things, specifically required vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and required the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that it would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. A Request for Bid containing provisions similar to those set forth by the City of Los Angeles would indicate that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

By way of background information, the issue of whether vehicles such as HIJETs are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act was addressed by NHTSA in an October 31, 1988 interpretation letter addressed to Mr. Hiroshi Kato of Mitsubishi. That letter addressed the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight industrial truck, which we understand, and you state, is very similar to the Daihatsu HIJET. At that time, Mitsubishi was considering whether to import the SH27.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." The agency has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. NHTSA has also concluded that vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary

and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that the vehicle was not easily classified under these groupings. On the one hand, it has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can obtain a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph, and could be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries. These factors suggested that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, Mitsubishi stated that the vehicle was intended to be used only for off-road applications, that it would be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only, and that it would contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggested that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

Based on the representations in Mitsubishi's letter, NHTSA concluded that the SH27 did not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. In addition to the other factors noted above which suggested that the SH27 should not be considered a motor vehicle, Mitsubishi had stated that its dealers would be instructed that the vehicle was to be used solely for off-road purposes-and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. NHTSA stated, however, that it would reexamine its conclusion if it learned,

for example, that the vehicle was in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

With this background information in mind, I will now address your question whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act, if it were to sell HIJET vehicles in Accordance with City of Los Angeles bid specifications that require vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and require the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them. Section 108(a)(1)(A) reads as follows:

No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 . . . .

It is our opinion that it would be a violation of this section for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle (which does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards) to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. The reason for this is that the only possible argument that a HIJET vehicle is not a motor vehicle is that it is intended solely for off-road use. The knowing sale to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would nullify this possible argument. Moreover, a Request for Bid containing provisions requiring vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them demonstrates that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

Further, such action by Daihatsu or its dealers would demonstrate that HIJETs should be considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act and subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I note that NHTSA's October 31, 1988 opinion that the similar Mitsubishi SH27 would not be considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act was premised on certain representations by Mitsubishi. The knowing sale of such a vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would be inconsistent with the representation that the vehicle was intended solely for off-road use. I also note that the provision in the City of Los Angeles Request for Bid requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicle and obtain license plates for them is inconsistent with one of the specific understandings set forth in that opinion.

You stated that Daihatsu is concerned about this matter because it has recently received a number of similar solicitations for HIJET-like vehicles which could be interpreted as solicitations for on-road vehicles. You stated that because of its concerns about potential violations of Federal law, Daihatsu has refrained from submitting a bid in accordance with the City of Los Angeles request. You also expressed concern that

other suppliers of similar vehicles apparently do not share Daihatsu's concern and indicated that the Los Angeles contract was recently awarded to a supplier of the Mitsubishi SH27. Please be advised that we are referring your allegations to our Office of Enforcement to determine whether there has been a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act.

With respect to Daihatsu, I note that the receipt of a number of such solicitations may suggest a general perception that the HIJET is appropriate for on-road use. NHTSA has determined that a vehicle is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding appropriate use. Thus, if Daihatsu wishes to continue to classify the HIJET as a non-motor-vehicle, it should ensure that its customers do not plan to use them for on-road use.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.50

DATE: 11/01/92 EST

FROM: Guy Boudreault

TO: U.S. Dept. of Transportation; U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation; U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/93 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Guy Boudreault (A40; Std. 105; Std. 121)

TEXT:

unfortunately, I am compelled to send you a copy of a letter sent by me to Mr. Wayne Mc Neil, the safety department head at Sunbury Transport Limited, in regard to the obligations imposed upon the drivers and asking him to act in reference to these present conditions.

I would appreciate your cooperation in regards to general rules applied within the United States relevent to the said letter. I sincerely think that safety on the roads are of major interest to you and therefore I consider it my duty to inform you as to the conditions imposed, although never expressed in writing.

I have confidence that Mr. Mc Neil will do his outmost to rectify the situation, nevertheless, I consider it my duty to report to you in order to get the whole story as to the application of the laws, for often have I seen drivers that I have worked with be charged in different accident cases causing death.

Thanking your for your cooperation in this matter, I remain respectfuly yours,

DATE

Subsequent to writing the following document, I did not send it immediately for I wanted to be sure that this document would be taken seriously considering that I am not very much educated and that many mistakes can be found in spelling as well as a lack of vocabulary to express myself reasonably well. However, I was rather encouraged to send it when the personnel company for which I work decided to give me a lay-off for lack of work. It also asked that I not send the present document for if I did, it would hurt the transportation industry. I do not believe for a minute that this would happen, but I do beleive that it might help other drivers to get better conditions in the future and thus have decided to go forward with this mailing and also have decided to walk away from driving as a proffession like many more before me. It is in my view a shame that company needs have become such important that workers' rights are diminished to the point of endangering public lives for the profit of too often subsidised companies who pride themselves in total disregard for their workers as well as the general public.

I have included a list of my calculations which can be revised at your will and have come up with the the following balance owing from the company to me. The personnel agency, has given me a part of this balance owing but has not as yet collected from the transport company and will definitely not collect all of the

amount for already, a member of the dispatching staff has refused to pay some time period claimed saying that my instructions were to go home on a certain day when in fact, he did not know that I was to wait for over eighteen (18) hours.

I finish my letter by asking that road transportation be looked into thouroughly and that logbooks be compared with payroll or tripsheets so as to find the real facts behind what every driver calls "SWINDLE SHEETS". May I add that in the last twenty-four years, my logbooks have been checked but four times, from where I seriously believe that encouragement to ignore laws is thereby given.

Respectfully yours, GUY BOUDREAULT

ILE PERROT, le 18 Octobre, 1992

Sunbury Transport Ltd Mr. Wayne McNeil P.O. Box 905 Station "A" Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5B4

Mr. McNeil,

I hereby wish to inform you of my agravated state of mind in relation with work at your employ. Of course you will understand that I realy mean employment Sunbury Transport" contracted by "A & F Personell of Montreal, Montreal, driving at leased "Renteway" tractor and pulling either leased "Caravan" trailers or "Sunbury" trailers.

I thought this situation seems to be of the most complexe category, the fact remains that "Sunbury" transport is where I get (direct orders) as to the manner in which I must perform my duties and therefore, I firmly believe that I should direct my questions, worries and suggestions to you since you are the at the helm of the safety department for transport division. Many anomalies have conflicted with the terms of my employment in comparison to the first interview I have had with you in May 1992. As I describe the discrepencies I have found, I hope that you will understand as well as appreciate my present frustations.

I was lead to believe that "Sunbury Transport insisted to our driving legaly in all aspects of the law and that we must under no circumstance drive overlog, use two log books or the use of other means for bypassing any Canadian or U.S. laws. I was also promissed by you personally that we would be allowed plenty of time for deliveries, however this is definitely not the feeling I have gotten since I first started driving at your service on June 25th, 1992. I also was promised an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I have kept my end of the deal, but somehow I have difficulty in understanding the payroll. I have therefore tabulated my log book trips as well as my paychecks and at this point I cannot yet see the equilibrium between the two. I have mentioned before that as human beings, we needed time for meals, for showers, for shaving

and sleep. It is my finding that the aforementioned have been ignored and that the appointments are taken with customers much too soon giving us no time our basic personal needs. On this subject may I suggest that (E T A)s (estimated time of arrival) be annulled. In my experience, only airlines have such ETAs' and in many cases they are delayed although they do not have to deal with scales, police, DOT checks, speed limits, school buses, school zones, stop signs, traffic lights, heavy traffic and road construction. It is also my understanding that we are paid by the shortest practical way from point A to point B and calculated schedules of delivery are at an average speed of 50 mph. or 80 km/h. while these shortest practical routings are often limited to 25, 35, and 45 mph. Please, let me know how we actually make the scheduled time of delivery within the allowed time, for after spending 24 years driving a commercial vehicle, I still donot acheive such performances. Please consider equally as important the fact that for a driver to be getting two days off every fifth or sixth week while he is working a minimum of twelve hours per day awaiting these precious days off. A driver cannot be alert, competant and comfortable in his performances under such conditions. We have to realise that we weigh 40 tons and that we are loaded to the limit most of the time and also that sometime we have to run on low fuel in order to respect the weight limit laws. In restrospect, I firmly disaprove of these working conditions and strongly suggest that some improvement be implemented, where appointments are concerned. I myself wish to advise you that I shall no longer consider the times of appointments for delevery unless reasonable time is granted to do so in consideration of the forementioned personal needs.

Mr. McNeil please consider the following duties we must perform and that for wich is paid or unpaid or benevolant.

Paid Benevolant 28/practical mile run a) Fulling tractor delivry time after 2 1/2 hrs b ) 2 1/2 per client(loading) at customer c) Calling dispatch(average 2 hrs/day) d) customer clearance e) 2 1/2 hrs per client(unloading) f) waiting for load g) paperwork

In resume on this point,I usually am at work for 16 hrs a day while being paid for miles only wich adds to my frsutations when I calculate my meal expenses etc which does not permit me to at least drive without worring about my rent and other utilities usually late paid.

Another point brought to my attention is the fact that you now want us to adjust the brakes on trailers. So I was told on October 14th, 1992 when I asked a dispatches for a P.O. for brake adjustments on trailer # 4403 and was asked to buy a 9/16" key so as to do it myself. It would be easier if I was informed asto its legality in the United States where we do most of our driving. I already know that in some Canadian provinces, it isn't legal and even if it is, brakes are too important considering the weight we carry for me to take that responsibility.

In reference to responsibility, I think it should be understood that I cannot perceive your way of thinking when people don't earn enough to make a decent living have to accept responsibility so costly that an important and prosperous international conglomerate such as the "Irving Group" would not think of being liable for such responsibilities from where the use of leased trucks trailers and Personal Agencies are hired. If a mishap should happen, and they do, the driver is sent to judgement as alone and as easily as old time Christians were sent to the Arena and fed to the lions. This has proven to be the case before in the trucking industry and it is the main reason for my intervention in this situation. It has to change in order for professional drivers to be reinstated in the industry as responsible and respected as professionals and not regarded as happy go lucky Bozos endangering public lives. I have spoken to many drivers and they were saying that alternatives to legalities needed to be used in order to make it and these alternatives ranged from a multitude of logbooks to electrical speedometers that shut off with ignition thus permitting to improve miles driven and comsequently payroll. This is not my way of operating and therefore I insist that the present conditions be revised so as to improve the safety on the roads, not only for us drivers, but for the population in general. It is your duty to improve these conditions as it is mine to report them.

Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter and hoping to hear from you very soon, I remain

respectfuly yours,

GUY BOUDREAULT - 9020

P.S.: Enclosed, you will find :

a) logbook sheets b) trip sheets c) pay slips d) payroll breakdown e) Sunbury "Memorandum" f) today's trucking exherps g) Copies of presentation to all organisms concerned.

ID: nht92-3.9

DATE: October 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. Mary Schiavo -- Inspector General for the Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Gerard Tucker -- Special Agent, DOT Office of Inspector General

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staff asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved.

Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer.

Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. ** In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified

information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle.

The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR S567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with S567.4.

Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle.

It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See S567.5(e) and S568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in S568.3:

Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.

Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced

certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit.

Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts.

A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR S568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles.

To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR S567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: "A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle." The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place.

The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Attachment

BUS INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA INC.

PRESENTED TO: NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PRESENTED BY: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. Special Agent (215) 337-2725

SUMMARY

Background and history of Bus Industries of America, Inc. (BIA)

Allegations:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 BIA provided a false statement to the government by certifying that they would meet the Buy America pro- vision of Section 165(b)(3) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1982

Title 18, United States Code, Section 542 BIA attempted to introduce imported merchandise into the commerce of the U.S. by means of a false or fraudulent statement

Title 19, United States Code, Section 1304 tampering with, or removal of Manufacturers Label of Origin

Chronology of events leading to allegations

Defense Counsel (ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT) assertions

Assistant United States Attorney's request for clarification from NHTSA

ATTACHMENTS

1. Title 18 U.S.C. 542 2. Excerpts from defense counsel brief 3. Excerpt from interview of Keith Sheardown 4. Ontario Bus Industries Label of Origin 5. Bus Industries of America Label of Origin 6. 49 C.F.R. 567, 568 7. Title 15 U.S.C. 1403

(Remainder of text is omitted.)

ID: Maxzone Interpretation EPLLA 571.108_(002) signed

October 4, 2024

VIA EMAIL

Ms. Penny Chiu 

Product Marketing Coordinator 

Maxzone Auto Parts Corp. 

mkt1363@maxzone.com

Dear Ms. Chiu, 

This responds to your email, dated July 7, 2023, seeking a legal interpretation regarding the proper calculation of the “effective projected luminous lens area” (EPLLA) under Federal Motor Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, and the inclusion of a “diffusion element,” as well as the “distinctive water wave pattern” on your product. You also submitted additional information via email to NHTSA staff, such as diagrams of your product and other supporting information, on June 28, 2023, and July 12, 2023, which was taken into consideration in developing this response. 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Based on the information you have provided and for the reasons explained below, our answer is that the area you describe as the “diffusion element” and the area you describe as having a “distinctive water wave pattern” can be included in the calculation of the EPLLA of your lamp under FMVSS No. 108 only if those elements are not transparent and direct light toward the photometric test pattern. However, based on the information you have provided, we are unable to state whether such elements do or do not perform such a function. 

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture before the products can be offered for sale. In so doing, manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards, and they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA.1 This requirement does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard, in this case FMVSS No. 108. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard’s test conditions and other specifications. Manufacturers must also ensure their products are free of safety-related defects. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning how your product, as you describe it, would be analyzed under FMVSS No. 108. It is not an approval of your product. 

In your July 7, 2023, email, you ask whether the EPLLA of your lamp, as defined in FMVSS No. 108, should include the area you describe as the “diffusion element,” or only the area you describe as the “refractive element.”2 You note that what you describe as the “diffusion element” of your product includes scattering structures as well as a “distinctive water wave pattern,” which you state “serves the purpose of diffusing light” and which you believe contributes to spreading the light emitted from the lamp. Your June 28 email includes two diagrams of the product which you state show the product’s EPLLA3 and the impact of the scattering structures on the surface. Finally, your July 12 email includes an image identifying the elements of your lamp. We note that although your question is regarding your product, which is a turn signal lamp, you have not asked about the EPLLA requirements applicable to a specific type of motor vehicle lamp. Therefore, your question, and this response, may be applicable to multiple lamp types. 

FMVSS No. 108, S6.4.1 states that “[e]ach turn signal lamp, stop lamp, high-mounted stop lamp, and school bus signal lamp must meet the applicable effective projected luminous lens area requirement specified in Tables IV–a, IV–b, and IV–c.” Furthermore, the lens area certification and compliance option in S6.4.3(a) states that “[w]hen a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Table V–b each such lamp must provide not less than 1250 sq mm of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Table V–b for each such lamp.” Table V-b includes turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps. Turn signal lamps certified under the lens area option must provide unobstructed minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 1250 sq mm at a horizontal angle of 45° and a vertical angle of 15°. 

As defined in FMVSS No. 108, EPLLA “means the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference. Unless otherwise specified, the direction is coincident with the axis of reference.”

1 Letter to Helen A. Rychlewski, responding to letter received June 7, 1995, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam5591.
2 Your submission also cites to the definition of “Diffusion Element” in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J2999. This definition is not incorporated into FMVSS No. 108.
3 The image submitted appears to indicate that your calculated EPLLA is 5648.159 sq mm.

FMVSS No. 108 also defines “effective light-emitting surface” as “that portion of a lamp that directs light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include transparent lenses, mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from an area of ½° radius around a test point.” 

The definition of “effective light-emitting surface” was added to FMVSS No. 108 in a final rule published on August 11, 2004 (2004 final rule).4 This action amended the standard for turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps to increase compatibility with the requirements of the Economic Commission for Europe and to improve the visibility of these lamps. In the 2004 final rule, NHTSA responded to comments on the proposed amendments and definitions. In so doing, we noted that “transparent lenses cannot be included in the determination of the effective light-emitting surface.”5 Furthermore, we also stated the following:

“[T]here does not appear to be any substantive change in determining the effective projected luminous lens area. However, the proposed definition clearly stated that only the portion of the lamp that directs light to the photometric test pattern may be included in the determination of the effective light-emitting surface. … we believe that transparent lenses do not direct light to the photometric test pattern and may not be included in the calculation. However, portions of translucent lenses intended to deliberately scatter the beam pattern within the allowable photometry (e.g., frosted or stippled lenses), are permissible as part of the effective projected luminous lens area.”6 

This statement makes clear that EPLLA does include translucent structures that direct light to the photometric test pattern by diffusing or scattering light, even if such structures are on otherwise transparent lenses. 

Discussion 

We now turn to your questions regarding your product. We understand you to be asking two distinct but related questions. First, whether the area that you describe as the “diffusion element” may be included for EPLLA? Second, does the presence of what you describe as the “distinctive water wave pattern” allow an area to be included in the EPLLA? We take these questions in turn. 

Regarding the first question, the definition of effective light-emitting surface makes clear that the area of transparent lenses may not typically be included in the calculation of the effective light

4 69 FR 48805 (Aug. 11, 2004). See also Letter to Dennis Moore, Nov. 15, 2006, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/06-003601as.
5 69 FR 48805, 48811 (Aug. 11, 2004). This statement was consistent with a June 14, 2000, letter of interpretation in which we stated that the transparent lens covering a large lamp assembly was not the “outer lens surface” of a turn signal lamp that is part of that assembly for the purposes of calculating its visibility requirements. Letter to Shigeyoshi Aihara, June 14, 2000, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/20836ztv.
6 69 FR 48805, 48811 (Aug. 11, 2004).

emitting surface. As explained in the 2004 final rule, such elements do not direct light toward the photometric test pattern. 

However, as we have stated in the past, areas of otherwise transparent lenses that incorporate scattering structures, such as frosted or stippled lenses, as well as certain cuts such as prism or pillow cuts and other similar structures, are not “transparent” for purposes of determining the effective light-emitting surface. Rather, these areas are “translucent” and may be included in the calculation of EPLLA, so long as such elements direct the light to the photometric test pattern. Based on the submitted materials, it appears that the area of the “diffusion element” you describe on the lens on your product has such cuts. If these cuts direct light toward the photometric test pattern, then the area of these cuts may be counted as part of your product’s EPLLA. 

We now turn to your second question regarding the “distinctive water wave pattern.” Similarly, if the “distinctive water wave pattern” has the effect of scattering light and directing the light toward the photometric test pattern, then its area may be included in the calculation of the effective light-emitting surface (and therefore, EPLLA). We note, however, that we are unable to determine whether the wave pattern has such an effect based on the information you have provided. As previously stated, the manufacturer must certify the product as compliant with the applicable standards and must exercise reasonable care in making such a certification. 

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/4/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: aiam4010

Dear Mr. Ori: Thank you for your letter of June 24, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of m staff concerning your meeting to discuss the interaction of Federal and State laws affecting the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I am glad that you and the other members of your committee found the meeting as helpful and productive as Mr. Oesch did.; I believe you will be interested to learn that subsequent to you meeting, the agency has corresponded with Congressman John S. McCain III concerning conflicting State laws on motor vehicle window tinting, a copy of the agency's letter to Mr. McCain is enclosed. We understand that Mr. McCain has also written directly to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this issue. We look forward to discussing possible joint actions to resolve the apparent problems in this area.; As you have requested, we have reviewed your interpretation of Mr Oesch's answers to the questions discussed at your meeting and find that you have accurately summarized them. To ensure a full understanding of each of the answers, we have provided below a complete response to each of the questions.; First, I would like to review some background information. The Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In 1967, the agency issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. The standard went into effect on January 1, 1968.; Vehicle manufacturers are responsible for certifying that al components on their vehicles comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards prior to sale. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that the glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to applicable safety standard (sic) is subject to civil penalties and recall action under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the proble of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. The 1974 amendments added section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add tinting to glazing materials of a used motor vehicle, if that tinting would 'render inoperative' the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205. Based on the law and regulations discussed above, we have provided the following answers to your questions.; *Question (1)*: What impact does Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 205 have upon commercial installers of tinting materials if the installation is performed:; (a) prior to the sale of the vehicle? *Answer*: If a commercial installer places tinting film on glazing in new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the abrasion resistance and other requirements of the standard.; (b) after its first sale? *Answer*: If a commercial installer adds tinting material to a use vehicle and the material reduces the light transmittance of the glazing to a level below 70 percent or otherwise reduces the compliance of the glazing with one of the standard's requirements, the agency would consider that action a rendering inoperative of the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205 in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not prohibit tinting by commercial businesses, it merely limits the use of tinting.; *Question (2)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have upon individual who install tinting on their own vehicles?; *Answer*: Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act does not appl to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add any level of tint to the windows in their vehicles without violating Federal law. States retain the authority to set their own laws regulating the application of window tinting by individual vehicle owners.; *Question (3)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have upon th manufacture and sale of window tinting material?; *Answer*: Standard No. 205 does not regulate the manufacture or sale o window tinting materials, it affects only the application of the tinting materials to windows in a motor vehicle. States retain the authority to issue laws affecting the manufacture and sale of such materials.; *Question (4)*: What impact does Standard No. 205 have on new vehicle versus old vehicles?; *Answer*: All new motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968 must be certified as complying with Standard No. 205. As discussed in our response to Question 1(b), the tinting of used vehicles, manufactured after January 1, 1968, by commercial businesses would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.; *Question (5)*: What specifically is a State preempted from doing b regulation or Federal law?; *Answer*: Federal law generally preempts any inconsistent state laws o the same subject covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment , any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; Thus, States may not establish provisions regarding tinting or othe vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Standard No. 105. States may establish and enforce identical requirements, they may also, as part of their motor vehicle inspection regulations, prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their windows, through tinting or otherwise, in any way that would violate Standard No. 205.; *Question (6)*: Must a state develop laws or regulations governing th actions of individuals pertaining to window tinting? If a state were to adopt Standard No. 205 which apparently governs manufacturers and commercial installers and adopt no other rules or regulations pertaining to actions taken by individuals regarding window tinting would that state be subject to Federal sanctions? Does a state have to adopt Standard No. 205?; *Answer*: There is no Federal requirement that States adopt law regulating the tinting of motor vehicle windows by vehicle owners. The agency does not have authority to sanction a State if the State decides not to regulate the actions of individual vehicle owners. As explained in our response to question 5, if a state adopts a law that regulates tinting by commercial businesses, then its laws must not be more or less stringent than Standard No. 205. States are not required to adopt a law identical to Standard No. 205 if that applied *only* to tinting by individual vehicle owners.; *Question (7)*: If a state were to adopt regulations or laws pertainin to the actions taken by individuals with regard to window tinting, would those laws or regulations have to mirror Standard No. 205? How could they be different?; *Answer*: As explained in our response to question 6, State law regulating tinting by individual vehicle owners do not have to be identical to Standard No. 205. We believe that NHTSA and the States have a common interest in promoting highway safety and in minimizing inconvenience to traveling motorists. We are interested in working with the States to see that State laws regulating tinting by vehicle owners are consistent.; *Question (8)*: Some would prefer that Standard No. 205 be amended t make glazing requirements for passenger vehicles and multipurpose passenger vehicles the same.; *Answer*: We understand that AAMVA is considering filing a petition fo rulemaking on this issue. Part 522 of our regulations sets forth our procedure on rulemaking petitions. A copy is enclosed for your reference.; *Question (9)*: Is it anticipated that there will be any materia change to Standard No. 205 in the near future?; *Answer*: The agency does not have any pending rulemaking actions o Standard No. 205. As with all of our standards, as the agency acquires data indicating a need to change a standard or if we receive a petition for rulemaking, we would determine if a rulemaking proceeding is justified.; *Question (10)*: May a manufacturer of window tinting materials sell product that does not conform to Standard No. 205? If not, is the sale of such a product based on its nonconformance to Federal standards?; *Answer*: Standard No. 205 does not regulate the manufacture or sale o tinting materials. Thus, there is no Federal regulation that applies to a manufacturer who sells tinting materials that, when applied to motor vehicle glazing, would render inoperative the compliance of the glazing with Standard No. 205. Although the agency would encourage all manufacturers of tinting materials to sell products which can be used on a vehicle and not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205, we do not monitor the sale of glazing materials. A state may adopt and enforce its own law regulating the manufacture and sale of tinting materials.; *Question (11)*: What does requisite for driving mean? *Answer*: The agency considers all windows in a passenger car to b requisite for providing the driver with a sufficient view to operate safely his or her car.; You also asked whether the agency has any guidelines for medica exemptions to Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 does not have provisions concerning medical exemption. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 09-002613 BMW positioning the seat

ID: 1984-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1984, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically inquired about the application of the requirements of section S3.5 of the standard to four possible inner door panel designs Mazda is considering.

You explained that manufacturer-installed armrests originally were simple in design and only extended a short distance sufficient to provide actual support for the arm or elbow of an occupant, but that currently manufacturers "employ inner door panel designs that embody a continous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience." You are concerned about whether the entire inner panel design would be considered an armrest.

You enclosed a drawing of four potential designs for an "inner door panel projection...that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest, ...other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls." You asked whether the entire designs would have to comply with section S3.5.1(b), which you understand applies to the whole armrest. You also asked how the designs could be changed to comply with section S3.5.1(a) or (c) and whether the agency's interpretation would differ if the designs were changed so that certain portions of the design were separate components.

First, I want to confirm that the requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), of the standard apply to the entire armrest, while S3.5.1(c) is limited to a portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area. Based on a review of the four designs, we have concluded that the shaded and unshaded portions of each design would be considered an armrest since each design is an integral unit which provides an area for an occupant to rest his or her arm. We cannot comment on how these designs could be changed to comply with sections S3.5.1(a) or (c) since your letter does not explain why you consider it impracticable to meet the requirements of those sections of the standard.

The agency's answer would differ if the designs shown in Figures 1, 2 and 4 were changed so that the shaded areas of those designs were a separate component located away from what you have labeled the literal armrest and had features, such as power window switches, installed in them which would preclude their use as a conventional armrest. As to Figure 3, if the shaded portion of the design which does not have a portion of the "literal armrest" on top of it were likewise moved and included functions to preclude its use to rest the arm, the agency would not consider it an armrest. It would appear that, because of the large size of the entire shaded area shown in Figure 3, you might not be able to separate it and include sufficient design features to preclude its use as an armrest. If that could be done, the agency, again, would not consider it an armrest.

As shown by your careful discussion of the purpose of the armrest requirements of the standard, you are aware that the agency is concerned about reducing injuries caused by any protrusion in the vehicle. If you decide to modify your designs so that certain portions would not be considered armrests covered by the standard, I urge you to utilize a design which will minimize occupant injuries.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 3 August 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Mazda respectfully requests consideration of this letter seeking the interpretation of terminology used in S3.5, Armrests, of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda understands that the requirements of S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest". This term has been generically used to define a protrusion mounted on the inner door panel and situated in such a manner as to allow an occupant to comfortably and conveniently rest their arm or elbow. The goal was to relieve the occupant of the fatigue that often accompanies automobile trips of extended length and provide a stable platform for the driver that decreases uneven and unnecessary movement. Originally, manufacturers installed "armrests" that were quite simple in design and extended along the length of the door only a significant distance to actually provide support to the occupant. Currently, however, many manufacturers employ inner door panel designs that embody a continuous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience.

It is in this context that some confusion arises. The obvious intent of S3.5.1 was and is to protect the occupant from potentially injurious collisions with the inner door panel. Indeed, S3.5.1(c) refers specifically to the "pelvic impact area", presumably as the location of greatest possible risk. However, S3.5.1(a) and S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest" and, in the case of designs mentioned previously, could thereby be applicable to the entire length of the inner door panel, including those locations of the inner door panel that the lower body of an occupant would not contact under an impact situation. Therefore, a possible design that could assist in the overall goal of providing occupant convenience may be prohibited by strict implementation of the term "armrest".

Mazda has conceived four possible design configurations for an inner door panel projection (see Figures 1-4) that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest and therefore in compliance with S3.5.1 (b) (Mazda currently considers it impractical to utilize the requirements of S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) relative to the depicted configurations), other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls.

Therefore, upon consideration of the preceding remarks, please examine the inner door panel configurations depicted and discuss them individually. Also, please offer any comments, suggestions or recommendations that might serve to insure adequate occupant protection, compliance with FMVSS 201, S3.5.1 (b) and maximum design flexibility. Further, please comment on the efficacy of modifying the configurations depicted so that compliance with S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) might be possible. Finally, please discuss any relevance that the continuity of the projection might impart on your interpretation; for example, the shaded area shown in Figures 1-4 being a separate component or piece.

Your consideration is most appreciated.

Thank you.

H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mls

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rodger I. Bloch, Sales & Marketing Director, Scott Air, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director Lavelle Road, P.O. Box 1745 Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Block:

This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to an air conditioning system you supply to school bus manufacturers. You explained that your system taps into the fuel system of the school bus. If your system is installed by a manufacturer as an item of original equipment on a school bus, the manufacturer of the bus, is required by Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle with the auxiliary air conditioner complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301.

If you are installing the air conditioners on the vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer and under Part 567.7 be required to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable standards.

In addition, you, in effect, asked about how a manufacturer or alterer demonstrates that it has exercised due care in making its certification of compliance. The agency has recently written Blue Bird Body Co. concerning this issue and I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 15, 1984

Dear Mr. Burndt:

Scott Air is a manufacturer of bus air comfort systems (air conditioning). It has been called to our attention by a manufacturer of school buses, that FMVSS 301-75 relating to fuel integrity was a concern to them. They have taken all steps to certify compliance to this standard. We are now supplying a self contained air conditioning system that is skirt mounted on the drivers side.

Our system is mounted to the chasis of the vehicle and incased in a steel housing, it is protected also by the steel brackets, by which it is mounted, as well as, the vehicle itself. Please see the enclosed photo's. We are tapping into the original certified fuel system of the vehicle and our system holds only about 6.5 ounces of fuel.

I have been talking to Mr. Taylor Vincent of your staff and also Mr. Tom Grubbs with the engineering department. They have both indicated we should be able to secure a DO CARE certification. Would you or your staff be so kind as to issue instructions to me, so I can proceed in this matter.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director ds Enclosure: omitted.

ID: nht76-1.40

DATE: 02/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Miller Spreader Company

COPYEE: MR. WELTZER -- REGION OFC. V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 1, 1976, to Regional Office V of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning whether your company's spreader product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, paricularly Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires.

The NHTSA issues safety standards and regulations for "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, workperforming nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a "motor vehicle."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and contruction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites.

Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119 does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

Miller Spreader Company

December 30, 1975

Bob Webtzer U. S. Department of Transportation

Enclosed please find the following items:

A. Literature describing two (2) models of Towed Pavers manufactured by the Miller Spreader Company:

1) Dial-A-Mat Paver

2) MS-708A Paver

B. Drawing 41001 showing the general arrangement of the rubber tired undercarriage used on both paver models above.

C. One photograph showing rubber tired undercarriage mounted under a Paver (See photograph marked "C")

D. One photograph showing towed paver carried on the rear of the dump body of a drump truck (see photograph marked "d").

E. One photograph showing paver elevated off the ground and being pulled by a tow bar assembly (see photograph marked "E")

F. Copy of Internal Revenue Service ruling exempting the Miller Paver when used in conjunction with a Miller Tow Bar from Excise Tax Regulations.

The Miller Towed Paver is a piece of construction machinery used specifically to spread asphalt or base materials on a prepared surface. This machine is used by both governmental bodies and commercial contractors to build and maintain driveways, parking areas, roads, etc.

A rubber tired undercarriage provides running gear for this paver. We have used a 530/450 6" wheel and pneumatic tire assembly in either 4 or 6 ply design. Our present models of this towed paver use eight (8) of these tire assemblies per paver (See drawing 41001).

To date we have no recorded incidents of wheel or tire failure other than an occassional flat, on these towed pavers.

We are interested in how the use of our present wheel and tire assembly on our Towed Paver meet current Department of Transportation specifications for this type of construction machinery. Specifically, we are interested in information pertaining to the particular application of our Towed Paver with a tow bar for highway use.

For purposes of our discussions we can treat both the Miller Dial-A-Mat Towed Paver and the Miller MS-708A Towed Paver as similar units in that changes in accessory components change the model designation and not the basic function of the machine. Hereafter we will refer to either machine as "Towed Paver".

The operation of the Towed Paver involves attaching the paver to the dump truck rear wheel assembly by means of an in-a-wheel hitch (see cover of Miller Dial-A-Mat literature). The dump body of the truck is then elevated, dumping asphalt materials into the hopper of the paver. The dump truck then moves forward pulling the paver which deposits a thickness of asphalt.

Transportation of the Towed Paver to and from the jobsite is done in either of two (2) ways. The most common method of transportation is to suspend the paver on the rear of a dump body (see photograph marked "d").

The second method of transportation of the paver to and from the jobsite is to use a tow bar (see photograph marked "e"). The towed paver is lifted off the ground by use of two (2) hydraulic cylinders and locked into the elevated position. The tow bar is attached to the rear of the paver. The tow bar is then attached to rear of the towing vehicle. Safety chains, lights, etc. are provided. The Paver is pulled from jobsite to jobsite much in the same manner as portable concrete pumps, concrete mixers, etc.

The distance the paver would be towed would not normally exceed 10-15 miles. I don't know whether the enclosed information for a excise tax exemption will be of any help but I have enclosed it for any useful purpose it might serve. I trust the enclosed information is complete. Please let me know if you need further information. Thank you for your assistance.

W. Thomas James, III

Internal Revenue Service

May 13 1974

Miller Spreader Company

Attn: Mr. W. Thomas James, II Vice President

This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1974, requesting a ruling whether the proposed manufacture and sale of a towing device described below will be subject to the manufacturer's excise tax imposed by section 4061(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The towing device (Tow Bar) is specially designed to be attached directly to an asphault spreader (Miller Paver) and will be used to connect the Miller Paver to a towing vehicle (truck) for the purposes of job to job moves. The Tow Bar will be limited to use only with a Miller Paver and will not be adaptable for use with other machinery.

Section 4061(b)(1) of the Code imposes a tax on parts or accessories (other than tires and inner tubes) for any of the articles enumerated in subsection (a)(1) sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer.

Section 48.4061(b)(2) of the Excise Tax Regulations defines the term "parts or accessories" as including (1) any article the primary use of which is to improve, repair, replace, or serve as a component part of an automobile truck or bus chassis or body, or other automobile chassis or body or taxable tractor, (2) any article designed to be attached to or used in connection with such chassis, body or tractor to add to its utility or ornamentation, and (3) any article the primary use of which is in connection with such chassis, body, or tractor, whether or not essential to its operation or use.

We have previously ruled in Revenue Ruling 72-479, published in the Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin 1972-2 at page 544, that a self-feeding spreading device designed to be attached to a standard dump truck body is not a "part or accessory" subject to excise tax. The Miller Paver is a self-feeding spreading device as described in Revenue Ruling 72-479 and is therefore not a "part or accessory" subject to excise tax.

The Tow Bar described is designed to be used primarily as a component part of, to add to the utility of, and in connection with the non-taxable Miller Paver rather than primarily with a taxable towing vehicle. Therefore the proposed manufacture and sale of the Tow Bar would not be subject to the tax imposed by section 4061(b)(1) of the Code.

We are enclosing a copy of Revenue Ruling 72-479 for your information.

Richard L. Crain Acting Chief, Excise Tax Branch

For the best paving job, greater profits . . . chec miller MS - 708A with Hydraulic Beam Electric/Hydraulic Controls Rubber Tires Heat

FOR MATERIAL SAVINGS

You'll need Miller's exclusive Hydraulic Beam. This feature alone will save time and material as well as reduce operator fatigue. Two levers on the operator's console let him make thickness corrections on either or both sides of the paver.

Corrections are made quickly and accurately . . . WITH HYDRAULIC BEAM a correction can be made in less than 4 feet of paver travel . . . with other pavers the same correction takes from 12 to 15 feet of travel.

FOR A SMOOTHER MAT

Check Miller's wide stance rubber tire undercarriage. The tires are staggered so they won't follow truck ruts and will provide a smoother ride over rough base.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FOR QUALITY MAT FINISH

Miller's heavy duty screed wear plate features rolled edges to assure a better mat seal on both straight pulls and on a radius. Both edges are rolled making the wear plate reversible.

A 31 jet in line screed heater provides even heat along the entire screed to assure a uniform mat finish. The even heat also eliminates plate warpage.

An insulated cover running the entire width of the paver shields the operator from the heat and minimizes fuel consumption.

FOR BETTER MATERIAL FLOW Miller's clean, unobstructed hopper design provides excellent material flow. Enlarged gate and bleed out openings increase the flow of material to the screed and extensions.

FOR MOBILITY

Only Miller utilizes a 4-point chain hook up for transporting the paver from job to job. This system assures safe, even support along the entire width of the truck body and prevents damage to the body or tailgate.

FOR GREATER RETURN ON INVESTMENT

In addition to all these outstanding performance features, Miller pavers are built to hold up under high tonnage and extreme paving conditions. All stress points (*) are engineered to provide maximum strength, thus assuring extended paver life.

MAKE US PROVE MILLER IS BEST . . . ASK US TO DEMONSTRATE.

(Graphics omitted)